The FCA’s statute of limitations has been a source of confusion and disagreement amongst the courts and litigants for years. The disagreement is focused primarily on whether a relator in a non-intervened case can take advantage of the three-year government knowledge/ten-year lookback provision under subsection (b)(2) or whether the relator is limited to the six-year limitation in subsection (b)(1). The majority of courts have held that the relator is bound by the latter provision, and cannot take advantage of the 10-year lookback period in cases where the government has declined to intervene. This split was recently expanded by the 11th Circuit, which found in U.S. ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018) that a relator could take advantage of the longer statute of limitations period in subsection (b)(2) even where the government has declined to intervene.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
FAR 52.222-90 Explained: New Clause May Result in 6,825 Audits Per Year • DOJ Stands Up a New Fraud-Fighting Division: What Government Contractors Need to Know About the National Fraud Enforcement Division • FAR Updates Trade Agreement Act Thresholds • GE’s $36 Million ITAR Penalty — A Wake-Up Call for Export Control Compliance • Treasury Canceled Booz Contracts Over Vetting of IRS Leaker, Bessent Says
Eleventh Circuit Expands the Divide on the FCA’s Statute of Limitations
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.